CNMI Attorney General Edward Manibusan has commented on a bill to impose a minimum fine of $250,000 on people who possess business licenses and engage in drug-related activity, urging a fine be set that is more consistent with the severity of the offense.<\/p>\n
In a letter to House committee on judiciary and governmental operations on Jan. 8, Manibusan said lawmakers should consider whether a nuisance abatement act would be more effective in preventing drug use at businesses.<\/p>\n
Manibusan said House Bill 19-120 sets a minimum fine of $250,000 but does not set a maximum fine, which means it could violate an excessive fines clause in the U.S. Constitution that prevents fines that are \u201cgrossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense.\u201d<\/p>\n
Manibusan said the minimum fine \u201calmost certainly violates\u201d this clause. \u201cThis fine applies to any violation of the Commonwealth Controlled Substances Act by an possessor of a business license, so a business owner who possesses on ounce or less of marijuana\u2014normally a $50 fine\u2026would face an additional fine of $250,000 or more.\u201d<\/p>\n
Manibusan said this fine would be, by far, the largest fine assessed in Commonwealth law. \u201cIt is five times greater than the fine for owning a slave [$50,000]. It is also equal to the maximum fine for committing most federal felonies.\u201d<\/p>\n
He added that because the minimum fine proposed would be greater than $2,000\u2014every drug case brought against the owner of a business would be come a felony, and entitle the defendant to trial by jury.<\/p>\n
If lawmakers believe that the current statutory scheme to shut down businesses that allow drug activity is insufficient, Manibusan said, they may consider adopting a \u201cnuisance abatement statute.\u201d Under this, if the government demonstrates that a parcel of land is being used repeatedly for illegal purposes, \u201cthe court may fine the owner, order the property vacated, or provide other relief.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe main advantage of using a nuisance abatement action is that the government would not need to obtain a criminal conviction to abate the nuisance and would only need to prove that nuisance exists by preponderance of the evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
CNMI Attorney General Edward Manibusan has commented on a bill to impose a minimum fine…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":47,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[56,194,67],"class_list":["post-218888","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-local-news","tag-business-3","tag-house-bill","tag-people"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218888","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/47"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=218888"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218888\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218888"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218888"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218888"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}